Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Populations of Neutron Star Ultraluminous X-ray Sources: Mind your b's and B's

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that a magnetic-field-dependent Eddington limit, $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}=\max(1,2B_{12}^{4/3})L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$, when used in beaming and population synthesis models, lets neutron-star ULXs reach super-Eddington luminosities…

desk verdict First population-synthesis test of the B-dependent Eddington limit in NS-ULXs; the direction is robust, but the quantitative agreement rests on an unvalidated rescaling of BH beaming formulas. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09526 v1 pith:JASPEIAF submitted 2025-01-16 astro-ph.HE

Konstantinos Kovlakas , Devina Misra , Roberta Amato , Gian Luca Israel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords ultraluminousX-raysourcesneutronstarsEddingtonlimitmagneticfieldsbeamingpopulationsynthesisluminosityfunctionspulsatingULXs
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Neutron-star ultraluminous X-ray sources (NS-ULXs) shine far above the classical Eddington limit, and a long-running debate asks whether their apparent brightness comes from geometric beaming or from very strong magnetic fields. This paper argues that both effects act together: when the Eddington limit is replaced by the magnetic-field-dependent value $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}=\max(1, 2B_{12}^{4/3})L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$, population synthesis models produce NS-ULXs that reach luminosities up to $10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ with only mild beaming ($b>0.1$ for $B_{12}=10$). Synthetic X-ray luminosity functions then agree better with observed data, predicted spin-up rates span a wider range, and wind-powered nebulae around NS-ULXs become more likely to be detected. The paper concludes that future NS-ULX modelling must include both B effects and beaming self-consistently rather than treating them as alternatives.

What carries the argument

The central object is the magnetic-field-dependent Eddington limit $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}=\max(1,2B_{12}^{4/3})L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$, where $B_{12}$ is the dipolar field in units of $10^{12}$ G. It encodes the reduction of the Thomson cross-section in strong fields and serves as the new reference luminosity for computing the Eddington ratio $\dot{m}$, the beaming factor $b=(8.5/\dot{m})^2$, the apparent luminosity $L_{\mathrm{iso}}=b^{-1}L_{\mathrm{bol}}$, the kinetic power $L_{\mathrm{kin}}$, and the spin-up rate $\dot{\nu}$ in the population synthesis pipeline. Because $\dot{m}$ is lowered when $L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ is replaced by $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$, the same mass-transfer rate yields a higher beaming factor, making NS-ULXs appear with milder collimation.

What would settle it

A concrete falsification would be a pulsating ULX whose measured spin-up rate lies outside the range predicted under $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$ for any plausible $B_{12}$, or a systematic nebula search showing that wind-powered nebulae around NS-ULXs are not more common than the classical beaming model predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the magnetic-field-modified Eddington limit, $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}=\max(1, 2B_{12}^{4/3})L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ (Eq. 6), should be used in place of $L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ inside the Shakura-Sunyaev super-Eddington luminosity law and the King (2009) beaming relation, with the Eddington ratio redefined as $\dot{m}=\dot{M}_{\mathrm{tr}}/L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$ for neutron stars. Running two independent population synthesis codes (COSMIC and POSYDON) with this substitution, the authors find that neutron-star ULXs with $B_{12}\sim0.5-10$ populate the observed luminosity range $10^{39}-10^{41}$ erg s$^{-1}$ with beaming factors $b>0.1$, rather than the extreme $b<10^{-2}$ required by the classical prescription. The resulting X-ray luminosity functions match the observed slopes and break structure better, the distribution of spin-up rates broadens to cover observed pulsars, and the predicted frequency of NS-ULXs with detectable wind-powered nebulae rises. The paper concludes that the beaming-versus-B debate is a false dichotomy: both ingredients are needed.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$ can simply replace $L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ in the standard Shakura-Sunyaev luminosity law and the King (2009) beaming relation, with only the Eddington ratio redefined, while the beaming geometry and outflow physics remain unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Synthetic X-ray luminosity functions move into better agreement with observed XLF fits and ULX demographic data, particularly above $10^{40}$ erg s$^{-1}$.
  • Neutron-star ULXs with moderate fields $B_{12}\sim 2-70$ can be sub-Eddington or mildly super-Eddington accretors, so extreme fields above $B_{12}\sim100$ are no longer required by the luminosity argument alone.
  • Predicted spin-up rates span a wider range and cover observed pulsating ULXs without forcing most sources to accrete near their maximum transfer rate; a future PULX with spin-up outside the classical range could discriminate between prescriptions.
  • Wind-powered nebulae such as the one around NGC 5907 ULX-1 become observable at much higher rates, making systematic nebula searches a direct test of the combined beaming-plus-B picture.
  • Equations (12)--(14) provide practical routes to estimate the beaming factor and the magnetic field from a single apparent luminosity.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the substitution is right, the hidden population of NS-ULXs beamed away from the line of sight is smaller than beaming-only models implied, so deep X-ray surveys should find a higher ratio of neutron-star to black-hole ULXs than previously estimated.
  • The same replacement of $L_{\mathrm{Edd}}$ by $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$ could be applied in other population synthesis codes with different stellar evolution and kick assumptions; qualitative changes (milder beaming, broader spin-ups) should persist, and discrepancies would point to physics beyond the Eddington-limit substitution.
  • A natural extension is to couple $L_{\mathrm{Edd},B}$ with a magnetospheric accretion prescription where the beaming factor itself depends on field strength and accretion geometry; this paper shows population-level sensitivity but does not attempt that self-consistent model.
  • The lower limit $B_{12} > (L_{\mathrm{iso}}/1.1\times 10^{39}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}})^{3/4}$ from Eq. (14) could be used to pre-select pulsating ULX candidates for cyclotron-line searches.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The Letter proposes that the magnetic-field-dependent Eddington limit, LEdd,B = max(1, 2 B12^(4/3)) LEdd (Eq. 6), should be used in place of LEdd in the standard Shakura-Sunyaev super-Eddington luminosity law (Eq. 2) and the King beaming relation (Eq. 4), with the Eddington ratio mdot redefined relative to LEdd,B for neutron star accretors. Using the COSMIC and POSYDON binary population synthesis codes, the authors compute synthetic ULX populations and report that NS-ULXs can reach super-Eddington luminosities with milder beaming, that the synthetic X-ray luminosity functions agree better with observed XLFs and ULX demographics, that the predicted spin-up rates span a wider range, and that NS-ULXs become more likely to be found inside wind-powered nebulae such as NGC 5907 ULX-1. The paper also derives practical formulas (Eqs. 12-14) for estimating beaming and magnetic field strength in individual sources. The analysis is a forward-model comparison rather than a fit: no free parameters are tuned to the target ULX observables, with the B-field distribution and XLF normalization inherited from earlier modeling choices.

Significance. If the central substitution is valid, the paper offers a concrete way to ease the long-standing tension between the extremely small beaming factors required for PULXs under the classical Eddington limit and the pulsation/geometry constraints that disfavor b < 0.01. The use of two independent population synthesis codes (COSMIC and POSYDON) is a strength, as is the fact that the predicted population-level differences are not produced by fitting to the ULX data. The practical formulas in Eqs. (12)-(14) are useful for observers. The significance of the claimed XLF improvement and the broader conclusions, however, rests on a single load-bearing ansatz about how a magnetized disk modifies the luminosity and beaming laws, and on a qualitative comparison with observed XLFs; both need to be addressed before the result can be regarded as established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2), (4), (6)] The entire calculation rests on substituting LEdd,B for LEdd in the Shakura-Sunyaev bolometric luminosity law and the King beaming relation, redefining mdot relative to LEdd,B for NSs, while retaining the same functional forms. This is an ansatz rather than a derivation: Eqs. (2) and (4) are derived for disks whose Eddington limit is set by energy-independent Thomson scattering, whereas in a strong B field the cross-section is anisotropic and photon-energy dependent, which can modify the vertical disk structure, the spherization radius, the outflow geometry, and the funnel opening angle. Since the predicted b distribution, XLF shape, spin-up range, and nebula statistics are direct consequences of this substitution, the central claim is contingent on a justification that the paper does not provide. Please either derive (or cite a derivation or simulation supporting) the scaling of Lbol and b with Mdot and B, or explicitly frame the calculation as a test of this specific ansatz and soften the implied model-data comparison accordingly.
  2. [Fig. 2 and Sec. 3] The claim that the LEdd,B models improve the agreement with the observations is based on a visual comparison. The synthetic XLF curves are shown without uncertainty bands (from sampling of the B distribution, binary population stochasticity, or the chosen ULX/SFR normalization), and no statistical test is applied to the comparison with the Lehmer et al. (2021) fit or the Kovlakas et al. (2020) data. Because the difference between the blue and green curves is the principal quantitative evidence for the Letter's headline result, please add credible intervals and a quantitative comparison statistic (e.g., a two-sample test over a stated luminosity range), or state explicitly that the improvement is qualitative and not statistically established.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 1 right panel, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The spin-up ranges are described as conservative but are computed by bracketing the accretion rate between Mdot_Edd and Mdot_tr, not from a self-consistent solution of Eqs. (10)-(11); since RM and Mdot are co-dependent, these ranges should be presented as illustrative envelopes rather than definitive model predictions. The comparison with the observed PULX points is suggestive, but no quantitative measure of agreement (for example, the fraction of observed points falling inside the predicted regions) is provided. Please clarify the status of these regions and ideally quantify their coverage of the observed PULX sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (7)] Please specify whether LEdd in the Lkin estimate is the classical or the B-dependent Eddington luminosity; the text says matter is accreted at approximately the Eddington rate, but it does not state which Eddington rate is used in the factor (mdot-1).
  2. [Eq. (13)] The expression 'ln b^{-1/2}' should be parenthesized as ln(b^{-1/2}) to avoid ambiguity about the argument of the logarithm.
  3. [Sec. 4] There is a duplicated definite article in the sentence 'from the the shift of two orders of magnitude'; a similar duplication appears in Sec. 3 ('the the classical LEdd').
  4. [Fig. 2] The K20 data points are plotted without visible error bars in the version provided; please add uncertainties or state in the caption that they are omitted.
  5. [Sec. 2.2] Since POSYDON inherits the B-field distribution from COSMIC, please clarify whether this distribution represents natal magnetic fields or includes field decay over the binary lifetime; this choice affects the high-B tail and hence the fraction of systems with B12 > 10.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the B-dependent Eddington limit is adopted from external theory (Paczynski 1992) and propagated through classical Shakura-Sunyaev/King relations; the claimed improvements are forward-model comparisons, not fits.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a forward-modeling exercise. Eq. (6), LEdd,B = max(1, 2 B12^(4/3)) LEdd, is adopted from an external result (Paczynski 1992, via Herold 1979) and is not defined in terms of the target observables. The central claim - milder beaming for NS-ULXs and enhanced contributions to high-luminosity XLFs - follows from propagating Eq. (6) through the classical Shakura-Sunyaev luminosity law and the King (2009) beaming relation (Section 2.1: 'Eqs. (1)-(4) are applied to estimate the apparent luminosity, Liso, for both BHs and NSs, but now the mdot is determined relative to the LEdd,B for NSs'). This substitution is an openly disclosed ansatz; Section 4 explicitly acknowledges that NS-ULX prescriptions are 'often extrapolated (e.g., Wiktorowicz et al. 2019; Misra et al. 2024) from the BH-ULX population (King 2009)'. The claimed improvement in XLF agreement is a shape comparison against observed data (Kovlakas et al. 2020; Lehmer et al. 2021), not a fit: no parameter of the beaming prescription or of Eq. (6) is tuned to reproduce the observed XLF. The XLF normalization is scaled to the empirical ULX/SFR scaling, which the paper states explicitly ('we scale the populations to match the measured scaling of ULXs with star-formation rate'), and the conclusions rest on the shape. Robustness is supported by two independent population synthesis codes, one of which (COSMIC) uses default parameters not calibrated to ULX XLFs. The spin-up and nebula statistics are forward predictions; the spin-up comparison (Fig. 1) is explicitly non-discriminating ('the points ... lie within the regions defined by the model using both prescriptions'). The self-citations (K20 demographic data; Misra et al. 2023, 2024 POSYDON parameters; Kovlakas et al. 2022 Eq. 6 used to obtain Eq. 12) are benchmark data, prior model calibration, and formula re-derivations that are not load-bearing for the differential LEdd-vs-LEdd,B result. Minor caveats that do not rise to circularity: the XLF normalization is inherited from an empirical scaling, the B-field distribution is sampled from the COSMIC prior rather than constrained by ULX data, and the 'improved agreement' is qualitative. These limit the strength of the empirical test but do not make any prediction equivalent to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on physically motivated but unverified modeling choices: the B-scaled Eddington limit, the extrapolation of King beaming to NSs, the adopted B distribution, and order-of-magnitude outflow assumptions. No new entities are introduced, and no parameters are fit to the target ULX observables.

free parameters (3)
  • B-field distribution for NSs in POSYDON = log(B/G) ~ N(12.22, 0.64), cap at 13.79
    Because POSYDON does not evolve NS magnetic fields, the authors sample B from the COSMIC population. The fraction of high-B systems controls how strongly LEdd,B affects the population, so the XLF and beaming results depend on this distribution.
  • ULX population normalization = 0.5 ULXs per 1 Msun/yr
    Synthetic XLFs are scaled to the observed ULX-star-formation-rate scaling (Kovlakas et al. 2020; Lehmer et al. 2021). This sets the vertical offset of the XLFs and is a fit to observed demographics, though the paper's conclusions concern shape and beaming.
  • Minimum mass-transfer selection threshold = 1% of classical LEdd
    Systems with Mdot_tr below this threshold are dropped. This cutoff ensures the full ULX population is included but also sets the faint end of the synthetic samples.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Lbol = LEdd(1 + ln mdot) for mdot > 1 (Eq. 2)
    Shakura-Sunyaev supercritical disk model, applied here to both BHs and NSs; the authors note it ignores advection effects.
  • domain assumption b = 1 for mdot <= 8.5, b = (8.5/mdot)^2 for mdot > 8.5 (Eq. 4)
    King (2009) beaming relation derived for BH-ULX outflows; the paper extrapolates it to magnetized NSs after replacing LEdd with LEdd,B.
  • domain assumption LEdd,B = max(1, 2 B12^(4/3)) LEdd (Eq. 6)
    B-dependent critical luminosity from Paczynski (1992) and others; assumes a dipolar field and photons below the cyclotron energy, applied isotropically.
  • ad hoc to paper The beaming and luminosity formulas remain valid when mdot is recomputed relative to LEdd,B
    The core modeling step: replacing LEdd with LEdd,B inside Eqs. (2)-(4) without changing their form. This is the load-bearing extrapolation that produces the milder-beaming result.
  • domain assumption Outflow speed in the Lkin estimate is 0.2 c (Eq. 7)
    Order-of-magnitude estimate from Pinto et al. (2016); directly affects the Lkin distributions and the nebula-detectability argument.
  • domain assumption Magnetospheric radius and spin-up formulas (Eqs. 10-11)
    Standard Shapiro-Teukolsky torque formulas assuming a dipole field and spherical accretion; used to compute the spin-up rate ranges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Populations of Neutron Star Ultraluminous X-ray Sources: Mind your b's and B's." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JASPEIAF

@misc{pith2026250109526,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Populations of Neutron Star Ultraluminous X-ray Sources: Mind your b's and B's},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JASPEIAF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09526}
}
read the original abstract

Ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) with neutron star (NS) accretors challenge traditional accretion models, and have sparked a debate regarding the role of geometrical beaming and strong magnetic fields (B). The reduction of the Thomson cross-section in the presence of strong B, leads to a modification of the Eddington limit, and therefore is expected to affect significantly the observational appearance of NS-ULXs. We investigate the role of this modification using population synthesis models, and explore its effects on the X-ray luminosity functions, spin-up rates, and outflow energetics of the observed NS-ULXs. Our results show that the new prescription allows NS-ULXs to achieve super-Eddington luminosities with milder beaming compared to before, improving the agreement with observations. In addition, it broadens the range of spin-up rates allowing for more diverse conditions in NS-ULXs in terms of accretion rates and magnetic fields. More importantly, the reduced beaming increases the likelihood of observing the NS-ULXs within wind-powered nebulae such as NGC 5907 ULX-1. Our findings highlight the necessity of taking into account B effects independently of the approach: geometrical beaming or strong B, and call for magnetospheric accretion prescriptions that can be integrated in population synthesis codes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09526 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effects of beaming and LEdd,B for a 1.4 M⊙ NS of varying B (see coloured text) on the apparent luminosity Liso (upper left) with/without beaming (solid and dotted lines, respectively), and b (bottom left) as a function of the M˙ tr. We also compare the ˙ν ranges (accretion rate between M˙ Edd and M˙ tr) as a function of the Liso using the modified (upper right) and classical (lower right; increasing B from bottom to… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Synthetic X-ray luminosity functions using COSMIC (left) and POSYDON (right), in the case of no beaming (red dashed), and beaming with the traditional (green), or modified Eddington limit (blue). The populations include both BH and NS-ULXs, and are compared against observational constraints from the XLF fit of Lehmer et al. (2021, L21 in legend) for nearby solar-metallicity star-forming galaxies (black), and ULX dem… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Kernel density estimates (scaled to unity for visibility) of the beaming factor (left) and mechanical feedback (right) in the total (dashed) and observed (solid) population of NS-ULXs from the POSYDON model, using the classical (green) or modified Eddington limit (blue). framework of NS-ULXs, we need parameter studies (investi￾gating kick velocity distributions, mass-transfer prescriptions; e.g., El Mellah et al. 20… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2021, ApJ, 917, L31

    Abarca, D., Parfrey, K., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2021, ApJ, 917, L31

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    A., Walton, D

    Bachetti, M., Harrison, F. A., Walton, D. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 514, 202

    2014

  3. [3]

    2022, ApJ, 937, 125

    Bachetti, M., Heida, M., Maccarone, T., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 125

    2022

  4. [4]

    Basko, M. M. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1976, MNRAS, 175, 395

    1976

  5. [5]

    2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 147

    Belfiore, A., Esposito, P., Pintore, F., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 147

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 1998, MNRAS, 297, 739

    work page 1998

  7. [7]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    2020

  8. [8]

    2021, MNRAS, 504, 701

    Brice, N., Zane, S., Turolla, R., & Wu, K. 2021, MNRAS, 504, 701

    work page 2021

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    A., Fürst, F., et al

    Brightman, M., Harrison, F. A., Fürst, F., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 312

    2018

  2. [10]

    2017, MNRAS, 470, 2799

    Chashkina, A., Abolmasov, P., & Poutanen, J. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 2799

    2017

  3. [11]

    2019, A&A, 626, A18

    Chashkina, A., Lipunova, G., Abolmasov, P., & Poutanen, J. 2019, A&A, 626, A18

    2019

  4. [12]

    2024, ApJ, 973, 38 Dall’Osso, S., Perna, R., & Stella, L

    Chen, W.-C. 2024, ApJ, 973, 38 Dall’Osso, S., Perna, R., & Stella, L. 2015, MNRAS, 449, 2144

    2024

  5. [13]

    Y ., Andac, I

    Eksi, K. Y ., Andac, I. C., Cikintoglu, S., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 448, L40 El Mellah, I., Sundqvist, J. O., & Keppens, R. 2019, A&A, 622, L3

    2015

  6. [14]

    H., Türko˘glu, M

    Erkut, M. H., Türko˘glu, M. M., Ek¸ si, K. Y ., & Alpar, M. A. 2020, ApJ, 899, 97

    2020

  7. [15]

    J., Bavera, S

    Fragos, T., Andrews, J. J., Bavera, S. S., et al. 2023, ApJS, 264, 45

    2023

  8. [16]

    2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd edn

    Frank, J., King, A., & Raine, D. 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd edn. (Cambridge University Press) Fürst, F., Walton, D. J., Harrison, F. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 831, L14

    2002

  9. [17]

    1979, Phys

    Herold, H. 1979, Phys. Rev. D, 19, 2868

    1979

  10. [18]

    R., & Asahina, Y

    Inoue, A., Ohsuga, K., Takahashi, H. R., & Asahina, Y . 2023, ApJ, 952, 62

    2023

  11. [19]

    R., Asahina, Y ., & Middleton, M

    Inoue, A., Ohsuga, K., Takahashi, H. R., Asahina, Y ., & Middleton, M. J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.17707

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al

    Israel, G. L., Belfiore, A., Stella, L., et al. 2017, Science, 355, 817

    2017

  13. [21]

    Kaaret, P., Feng, H., & Roberts, T. P. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 303

    2017

  14. [22]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3588

    2019

  15. [23]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3611

    2020

  16. [24]

    & Lasota, J.-P

    King, A. & Lasota, J.-P. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.03779

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, L59

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Klu´ zniak, W. 2017, MNRAS, 468, L59

    2017

  18. [26]

    2023, New A Rev., 96, 101672

    King, A., Lasota, J.-P., & Middleton, M. 2023, New A Rev., 96, 101672

    2023

  19. [27]

    King, A. R. 2009, MNRAS, 393, L41

    2009

  20. [28]

    R., Davies, M

    King, A. R., Davies, M. B., Ward, M. J., Fabbiano, G., & Elvis, M. 2001, ApJ, 552, L109 Klu´ zniak, W. & Rappaport, S. 2007, ApJ, 671, 1990

    2001

  21. [29]

    2022, A&A, 665, A28

    Kovlakas, K., Fragos, T., Schaerer, D., & Mesinger, A. 2022, A&A, 665, A28

    2022

  22. [30]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., Andrews, J. J., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1896

    2021

  23. [31]

    J., et al

    Kovlakas, K., Zezas, A., Andrews, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 4790

    2020

  24. [32]

    G., Postnov, K

    Kuranov, A. G., Postnov, K. A., & Yungelson, L. R. 2020, Astronomy Letters, 46, 658

    2020

  25. [33]

    & King, A

    Lasota, J.-P. & King, A. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 2506

    2023

  26. [34]

    D., Eufrasio, R

    Lehmer, B. D., Eufrasio, R. T., Basu-Zych, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 907, 17

    2021

  27. [35]

    Lipunova, G. V . 1999, Astronomy Letters, 25, 508 Article number, page 5 A&A proofs: manuscript no. main

    1999

  28. [36]

    J., Brightman, M., Pintore, F., et al

    Middleton, M. J., Brightman, M., Pintore, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 2

    2019

  29. [37]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046

    2021

  30. [38]

    M., Zapartas, E., & Aguilera-Dena, D

    Misra, D., Fragos, T., Tauris, T. M., Zapartas, E., & Aguilera-Dena, D. R. 2020, A&A, 642, A174

    2020

  31. [39]

    2024, A&A, 682, A69

    Misra, D., Kovlakas, K., Fragos, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A69

    2024

  32. [40]

    2023, A&A, 672, A99

    Misra, D., Kovlakas, K., Fragos, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 672, A99

    2023

  33. [41]

    A., Ingram, A., Middleton, M., Nagirner, D

    Mushtukov, A. A., Ingram, A., Middleton, M., Nagirner, D. I., & van der Klis, M. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 687

    2019

  34. [42]

    A., Ingram, A., Suleimanov, V

    Mushtukov, A. A., Ingram, A., Suleimanov, V . F., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 730

    2024

  35. [43]

    Mushtukov, A. A. & Portegies Zwart, S. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 5457

    2023

  36. [44]

    2021, MNRAS, 501, 2424

    Poutanen, J. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 2424

    2021

  37. [45]

    A., Suleimanov, V

    Mushtukov, A. A., Suleimanov, V . F., Tsygankov, S. S., & Poutanen, J. 2015, MNRAS, 454, 2539

    2015

  38. [46]

    A., Tsygankov, S

    Mushtukov, A. A., Tsygankov, S. S., Suleimanov, V . F., & Poutanen, J. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 2867

    2018

  39. [47]

    1992, Acta Astron., 42, 145

    Paczynski, B. 1992, Acta Astron., 42, 145

    1992

  40. [48]

    Pakull, M. W. & Mirioni, L. 2002, arXiv e-prints, astro

    2002

  41. [49]

    2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    Paxton, B., Bildsten, L., Dotter, A., et al. 2011, ApJS, 192, 3

    2011

  42. [50]

    J., & Fabian, A

    Pinto, C., Middleton, M. J., & Fabian, A. C. 2016, Nature, 533, 64

    2016

  43. [51]

    G., & Abolmasov, P

    Poutanen, J., Lipunova, G., Fabrika, S., Butkevich, A. G., & Abolmasov, P. 2007, MNRAS, 377, 1187

    2007

  44. [52]

    & Mereghetti, S

    Revnivtsev, M. & Mereghetti, S. 2016, in The Strongest Magnetic Fields in the Universe, ed. V . Beskin, A. Balogh, M. Falanga, M. Lyutikov, S. Mereghetti, T. Piran, & R. Treumann (New York, NY: Springer New York), 299–320

    2016

  45. [53]

    Shakura, N. I. & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 500, 33

    1973

  46. [54]

    Shapiro, S. L. & Teukolsky, S. A. 1983, Black holes, white dwarfs and neutron stars. The physics of compact objects (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd)

    1983

  47. [55]

    2021, ApJ, 909, 50

    Vasilopoulos, G., Koliopanos, F., Haberl, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 909, 50

    2021

  48. [56]

    J., Bachetti, M., Fürst, F., et al

    Walton, D. J., Bachetti, M., Fürst, F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 857, L3

    2018

  49. [57]

    2019, ApJ, 875, 53

    Wiktorowicz, G., Lasota, J.-P., Middleton, M., & Belczynski, K. 2019, ApJ, 875, 53

    2019

  50. [58]

    H., & Murray, S

    Zezas, A., Fabbiano, G., Rots, A. H., & Murray, S. S. 2002, ApJ, 577, 710 Article number, page 6

    2002

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.